'Nigeria: the (wide) context for violence'

[davidbfpo]

it is difficult to quantify the risk that Boko Haram presents outside Nigeria or to say for certain that it is on the verge of becoming an international – rather than a local – threat.....there is no evidence tying Boko Haram to al-Qaeda central or the broader jihadi community on an operational level....Boko Haram continues to resist becoming a wider movement. It fights for the realisation of its founding objectives – to end Western education and influence in Nigeria and to Islamise the country.

Link:http://iissvoicesblog.wordpress.com/...ican-al-qaeda/

Almost like 'The Accident Guerilla' argument.

[KingJaja]

Is that myopia or what? Nobody in Nigeria cares whether Boko Haram is an "African Al Qaeda" or not.

Are we going to wait until full-blown, sectarian, Lebanon-style crisis blows up until we realize the danger Boko Haram poses?

[Ken White]

The answer to your question is probably.

Glad you reappeared, was getting worried that you'd wandered off...

[Bill Moore]

Posted by KingJaja

Is that myopia or what? Nobody in Nigeria cares whether Boko Haram is an "African Al Qaeda" or not.

Are we going to wait until full-blown, sectarian, Lebanon-style crisis blows up until we realize the danger Boko Haram poses?

There are plenty of links between Boko Haram and Al Qaeda related groups in Africa, and those in the know actually making decisions understand that. However, that doesn't mean Boko Haram will conduct attacks outside the borders of Nigeria. The Nigerians have proven to be very a savvy lot and they have sophisticated organized crime organizations that operate globally, not to mention their effective computer crimes that range from simple scams to sophisticated attacks. I have no idea if the Muslim Nigerians are part of these organizations, but the Nigerians as a whole are plenty sophisticated enough to wreck havoc.

AQ affiliation is just one concern, but is the periscope we tend to view the world through, which too often blinds us to other important issues that can have an impact on our interests. Nigeria is important whether or not AQ is present, it is the largest nation in Africa, it is the HQs of ECOWAS which does a fair job of retaining some degree of regional stability in W. Africa, and it produces a fair amount of oil. The bottom line is if the situation in Nigeria escalates significantly it will most likely further destabilize the region due to direct spill over from its borders and indirectly by degrading ECOWAS.

All that said I don't know what the U.S. should do that it isn't doing already?

[KingJaja]

A few things the US should do.

1. Declare Boko Haram (the entire organisation) as an FTO. Already prominent Islamic clerics have openly challenged BH and for the US to hide behind "political correctness" might be misconstrued as acquiescence.

2. Understand the internal dynamics of the struggle. The Southern Christian population will react, but BH is also reaction to the Northern Muslim establishment. The future unity of Nigeria is seriously at stake - this is what should worry ALL analysts.

[Chowing]

The number one danger that Boko Haram posses is that it is fully operational and has a devastatingly violent track record in Africa's most populous country. That in itself is of enough concern for the world community to take notice.
Fact of the matter is the AQIM and Boko Haram have each claimed "communication" and "ties" with the other. This may all be rhetoric, but there is enough smoke to cause pause and concern.

Sorry, that I have been away for awhile.

[Chowing]

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

There are plenty of links between Boko Haram and Al Qaeda related groups in Africa, and those in the know actually making decisions understand that. However, that doesn't mean Boko Haram will conduct attacks outside the borders of Nigeria.

They have more than enough territory and people to keep them busy just in Nigeria. After all, they do not claim any global goals that I know of.

Nigeria is important whether or not AQ is present, it is the largest nation in Africa, it is the HQs of ECOWAS which does a fair job of retaining some degree of regional stability in W. Africa, and it produces a fair amount of oil. The bottom line is if the situation in Nigeria escalates significantly it will most likely further destabilize the region due to direct spill over from its borders and indirectly by degrading ECOWAS.

All that said I don't know what the U.S. should do that it isn't doing already?

Yep. Yet it has little press attention in the USA or Europe.

[Dayuhan]

Originally Posted by KingJaja

A few things the US should do.

1. Declare Boko Haram (the entire organisation) as an FTO. Already prominent Islamic clerics have openly challenged BH and for the US to hide behind "political correctness" might be misconstrued as acquiescence.

2. Understand the internal dynamics of the struggle. The Southern Christian population will react, but BH is also reaction to the Northern Muslim establishment. The future unity of Nigeria is seriously at stake - this is what should worry ALL analysts.

I'm not sure what the "FTO" designation would accomplish. In practice the main effect of the designation is that it prohibits US-based funding and allows the US to impose sanctions on other entities providing financing, but I haven't seen evidence that BH receives funding from the US or from sources the US could control.

The designation could produce the impression that the US is considering intervention (the reaction to AFRICOM suggests that US pronouncements are routinely exaggerated and misconstrued), and could accelerate internationalization of the conflict. It could provoke attacks on US or other foreign targets, which BH has so far avoided.

Understanding is always worth pursuing, but I suspect that the best course for the US to take is to quietly pursue understanding while avoiding any step that would suggest involvement.

[Bill Moore]

http://www.voanews.com/articleprintview/1382336.html

US Congressional Panel Examines Boko Haram Violence in Nigeria

Carson said Boko Haram capitalizes on the poverty and misery in the northern part of Nigeria, and called on the Nigerian government to address the root cause of the problem by providing better governance to all Nigerians. "Boko Haram thrives because of social and economic problems in the north that the government must find a way of addressing," he said.

Representative Smith rejected any assertion that terrorism is caused by social and economic problems, saying that the State Department underestimates the threat of militant Islamists who seek to impose Sharia, or Islamic law.

"Ideology that is highly, highly radicalized may exploit poverty at times, but poor people do not necessarily become terrorists and killers. That is an insult, frankly, to poor people," he said.

New Jersey is producing some credible politicians, good to see Congress taking this B.S. State rhetoric to court.

The study at the link below produced last DEC is a quick read that provides a fair overview in my opinion. Obviously the situation has escalated since DEC.

http://bakerinstitute.org/publicatio...ram-121611.pdf

4) We promise the West and Southern Nigeria, a horrible pastime.

29 MAR, 2010 Musa stated:

Islam doesn't recognize international boundries, we will carry out our operations anywhere in the world if we can have a chance. The United States is the number one target for its oppression and aggression Muslim nations, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan

and so on

June 13 BH announced:

Very soon, we will wage jihad...We want to make it known that our jihadists have arrived in Nigeria from Somalia where they received real training on warfare from our brethren who made that country ungovernable.

The attack on the UN in AUG 26 in Abuja was meant to send a message that BH's goals were bigger than local issues. Points out the increased use of suicide bombers and video tapping the attacks, but further points out there are no known links with Middle Eastern extremists.

Overall still a lot of unknowns, but definitely deserves continued vigilence.

[KingJaja]

I've made this point severally - a wrong diagnosis leads to wrong prescriptions.

The prism through which Boko Haram is viewed in the West is the "War on Terror", that is very wrong, because it obscures us from extremely important issues.

Africa's most populous nation is tottering, reeling from the effects of a Niger Delta insurgency and now an Islamist insurgency - its future is uncertain.

A question to be asked is "what can the US/West possibly do?".

You start answering the question when you realise that these problems are political (at least that is how they are interpreted in Nigeria). Nigeria has never really been stable, we fought a Civil War in sixties and I think it is high time we recognise the inevitable: either we split or we renegotiate the basis for continued unity.

This is where Western diplomatic effort should be concentrated. It is counterproductive to work towards maintaining the status quo, when the status quo is extremely unstable.

[KingJaja]

This is the sort of nonsense peddled in Nigeria and the US refusal to designate Boko Haram as an FTO only feeds the narrative that the US is somehow behind Boko Haram in an attempt to destabilise Nigeria and seize our oil.

FOREIGN interests hell-bent on destroying the soul of not only Nigeria, but the whole of Africa, may actually be sponsoring the Boko Haram insurgents. These forces however use local collaborators who promote and employ endemic corruption as a weapon of mass destruction against the county’s moral values and social structure.

These were the submissions of an Arewa Chieftain and Peoples Redemption Party (PRP) National Legal Adviser, Mallam Aliyu Umar.

Umar spoke yesterday while reacting to the inauguration of the 40-man committee by the Northern governors to dialogue with the leaders of Boko Haram.

“The primary security challenge facing the North and Nigeria and that has been facing the North and Nigeria is corruption as the Boko Haram factor has since been hijacked by foreign desperate neo-colonial forces and their hired domestic agents who are determined to ensure the breakup of Nigeria by the year 2015 as the Americans have shamelessly predicted.

“ Corruption is the most devastating weapon of mass destruction (which) they unleashed on Nigeria for the purpose of attaining unrealisable neo-colonial objective. This is what has transformed a purely Nigerian security with Northern contents into an international issue with anti-African neo-colonial contents, which, of course, can as usual, be dismissed as a mere conspiracy theory at great expense to our lives and the soul of … Africa,”Umar declared. According to him, “corruption does not only kill humans but it also destroys the souls of nations...”

The PRP chief expressed doubts that the committee raised by the northern governors will be able to accomplish much.

[davidbfpo]

Slightly edited

Originally Posted by KingJaja

I've made this point severally - a wrong diagnosis leads to wrong prescriptions.

Africa's most populous nation is tottering, reeling from the effects of a Niger Delta insurgency and now an Islamist insurgency - its future is uncertain.

A question to be asked is "what can the US/West possibly do?"....

.....You start answering the question when you realise that these problems are political..... and I think it is high time we recognise the inevitable: either we split or we renegotiate the basis for continued unity.

This is where Western diplomatic effort should be concentrated. It is counterproductive to work towards maintaining the status quo, when the status quo is extremely unstable.

KingJaja,

For a host of reasons neither the USA or the West can make such a diplomatic effort to alter the status quo. They simply cannot take such a political stance, even if quiet diplomacy was possible and I would argue they are not the best parties to help. Too many vested interests are involved, including oil, the African stance on re-drawing borders would mean such diplomacy would cause anger even amongst friends.

There are a few smaller Western nations that could help quietly, including non-state parties. For example IIRC the Italian missionaries in Mozambique and the Norwegians in Palestine. A better example, much higher profile too were the various efforts made to end apartheid in South Africa.

First though I must ask do Nigerians themselves recognise that:

either we split or we renegotiate the basis for continued unity

If Nigerians do not then no amount of diplomacy will help.

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Kingjaja

First you write this:

The prism through which Boko Haram is viewed in the West is the "War on Terror", that is very wrong, because it obscures us from extremely important issues.

Then you write this:

This is the sort of nonsense peddled in Nigeria and the US refusal to designate Boko Haram as an FTO only feeds the narrative that the US is somehow behind Boko Haram in an attempt to destabilise Nigeria and seize our oil.

While the two comments above are not necessarily illogical I think they do call for further explaination. Our State Department only designated a couple of individuals because they're generally in agreement with your first comment above, but then you complain that the whole group isn't designated which in theory would make them part of our war on terror.

Where do you stand exactly if you have a stance?

[KingJaja]

David,

Nigerians see the need to renegotiate the basis for continued unity:

The call for the convocation of a National Sovereign Conference (SNC) to discuss issues affecting the country and the terms of our togetherness increases almost by the passage of each day. However, there are those who are not favourably disposed to the idea because they view the idea of calling for a sovereign conference as a challenge to the sovereignty of the Nigerian state.

To get the perspective of Nigerians on this matter, the Nigerian Tribune conducted an opinion poll on the desirability or otherwise of an SNC. The poll result shows that many Nigerians support the idea of having a conference to discuss the future of the country.

Out of the 634 people who participated in the poll on our website, www.tribune.com.ng, 484 of the respondents, representing 76.3 per cent, voted in favour of having a sovereign conference. On the other hand, 130 respondents (20.5 per cent) voted against it, while 20 people (3.2 per cent) voted 'I don't know.'

The same question was posted on the Nigerian Tribune Facebook page to enable people comment on their responses. Excerpts of the comments are presented below.

http://tribune.com.ng/index.php/feat...ence-nigerians

If it isn't done peacefully now, it will be done violently in the near future. The window of opportunity is closing fast and the 2015 elections are an important watermark.

[KingJaja]

Bill Moore,

1. One can walk and chew gum at the same time and the US Government should be able to do so.

2. The Tamil Tigers are FTO, and they have nothing to do with the GWOT (and neither does Joseph Kony and the mad men he leads), BH fits the description of an FTO and should be labelled as such.

3. Designating two men as "terrorists" and giving the organisation they lead a free pass, is not only illogical and nonsensical but it reeks of hypocrisy. Many Nigerians are of the opinion that the US is shying away from designating Boko Haram as an FTO because they fear that the Northern Muslim elite will win elections in 2015 and control the oil resources - predictably, the US doesn't want to antagonise them.

4. Nigeria's Internet penetration rose sharply from 6% in 2010 to over 20% this year. We are dealing with an increasingly well informed population (in a nation of 160 million), and if the US didn't take public opinion seriously in the past, it should take it now.

5. Finally, it questions the credibility of the FTO classification business. You guys don't realise that Nigeria and US are partner on many initiatives in Africa. You don't also realise that Nigeria is "democratising" rapidly and that public opinion is more important today than it was decade ago.

The US must be seen to be transparent in its dealings with the Nigerian people. I have a quick suggestion here, either designate BH Haram as an FTO or discard the entire FTO classification business.

[Dayuhan]

Originally Posted by KingJaja

This is the sort of nonsense peddled in Nigeria and the US refusal to designate Boko Haram as an FTO only feeds the narrative that the US is somehow behind Boko Haram in an attempt to destabilise Nigeria and seize our oil.

No matter what the US does, the conspiracy theorists will twist it into someting despicable and devious. If the US declares BH a terrorist organization, they'll be laying the groundwork to send in AFRICOM and seize the oil, if they don't, they'll be backing BH in an attempt to split Nigeria and gain control of the oil. The US can't design policy to undercut conspiracy theories, because any new policy will just generate a new range of theories, even more bizarre than the last.

Originally Posted by KingJaja

2. The Tamil Tigers are FTO, and they have nothing to do with the GWOT (and neither does Joseph Kony and the mad men he leads), BH fits the description of an FTO and should be labelled as such.

Again, the FTO designation is often used as a way to try and cut off external funding toward an organization. I don't know if this is the case with the Tamil Tigers, but there is a substantial Tamil diaspora and there may have been a perceived need to build a legal basis to restrict external funding.

I don't know, but I suspect that the US is reluctant to designate BH as an FTO because they think it might be seen as internationalizing a domestic conflict and because it might provoke BH attacks on US targets. Those don't seem totally illegitimate reasons to me.

Originally Posted by KingJaja

3. Designating two men as "terrorists" and giving the organisation they lead a free pass, is not only illogical and nonsensical but it reeks of hypocrisy. Many Nigerians are of the opinion that the US is shying away from designating Boko Haram as an FTO because they fear that the Northern Muslim elite will win elections in 2015 and control the oil resources - predictably, the US doesn't want to antagonise them.

I can see how some would believe this, but the truth is it really doesn't matter. The oil will be sold no matter what.

Originally Posted by KingJaja

4. Nigeria's Internet penetration rose sharply from 6% in 2010 to over 20% this year. We are dealing with an increasingly well informed population (in a nation of 160 million), and if the US didn't take public opinion seriously in the past, it should take it now.

Internet access doesn't necessarily make people better informed. Sometimes it just puts them in touch with a wider and stranger range of conspiracy theories.

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Dayuhan,

No matter what the US does, the conspiracy theorists will twist it into someting despicable and devious. If the US declares BH a terrorist organization, they'll be laying the groundwork to send in AFRICOM and seize the oil, if they don't, they'll be backing BH in an attempt to split Nigeria and gain control of the oil. The US can't design policy to undercut conspiracy theories, because any new policy will just generate a new range of theories, even more bizarre than the last.

So true

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/th.../2011/jul/15/1

Again, the FTO designation is often used as a way to try and cut off external funding toward an organization. I don't know if this is the case with the Tamil Tigers, but there is a substantial Tamil diaspora and there may have been a perceived need to build a legal basis to restrict external funding.

I was in and out of Sri Lanka while the designation process was unfolding. The LTTE representatives in Sri Lanka and the U.S. were aggressively lobbying to avoid the FTO designation (freedom fighters, not terrorists argument). They have a large diaspora in Canada, and a smaller one in the U.S. and we're aggressively conducting fund raising in both countries and of course Europe. The designation didn't defeat them, but it certainly reduced some streams of funding and further isolated them diplomatically.

Posted by Kingjaja

4. Nigeria's Internet penetration rose sharply from 6% in 2010 to over 20% this year. We are dealing with an increasingly well informed population (in a nation of 160 million), and if the US didn't take public opinion seriously in the past, it should take it now

.

The U.S. always take public opinion seriously. Based on your comment it seems you assume your opinion equates to the larger public opinion. I suspect there are a wide range of opinions in Nigeria that are further diversified by the penetration of the internet.

5. Finally, it questions the credibility of the FTO classification business. You guys don't realise that Nigeria and US are partner on many initiatives in Africa. You don't also realise that Nigeria is "democratising" rapidly and that public opinion is more important today than it was decade ago.

The US must be seen to be transparent in its dealings with the Nigerian people. I have a quick suggestion here, either designate BH Haram as an FTO or discard the entire FTO classification business.

There are a lot of people with strong opinions like yours around the world that call our FTO designation process into question, and maybe they should, but it still survives and it serves "our" interests, which is what it is attended to do. I think many of us would agree with you that the process is often flawed, but it is a U.S. process to support U.S. interests.

As for not realizing that Nigeria and the U.S. are partners that may be true for some; however, I worked in Nigeria where we partnered them to address some regional security issues. I'm fully aware of their leadership role in Western Africa, which is why I think the BH and other threats to Nigeria are serious threats to our security and economic interests in the region. Not sure why you thought otherwise?

[KingJaja]

Pastor Ayo Oritsejafor, president of Nigeria’s Christian Association of Nigeria called Tuesday on the United States to declare the Islamist group Boko Haram to be terrorists, but a US official said it was more important to address social inequalities.

In an unusually blunt appeal by a foreigner before the US Congress in Washington D.C, the head of the main Christian body in religiously divided
Nigeria said that a decision to blacklist three Boko Haram leaders as terrorists did not go far enough. Oritsejafor said that the US move on June 21 was “the equivalent of designating (Osama) bin Laden a terrorist but failing to designate Al-Qaeda a terrorist organization.”

Oritsejafor said that the reluctance to brand Boko Haram as terrorists had emboldened the group, which is estimated to have killed more than 1,000 people since mid-2009 in attacks on Christian and government sites. “By refusing to designate Boko Haram as a foreign terrorist organization, the
United States is sending a very clear message, not just to the federal government of Nigeria, but to the world that the murder of innocent Christians and Muslims who reject Islamism — and I make a clear distinction here between Islam and Islamism — are acceptable losses,” Oritsejafor said.

“It is hypocritical for the United States and the international community to say that they believe in freedom and equality when their actions do not support those who are being persecuted,” he told the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Oritsejafor said Boko Haram sought “an end to Western influence and a removal of the Christian presence in Nigeria,” telling the US lawmakers: “My people are dying every day.”

http://beegeagle.wordpress.com/2012/...am-terrorists/

It is extremely risky to antagonise Nigeria's Christian population.

[KingJaja]

The Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) has expressed its displeasure over the manner which the United States of America treat the consistent attacks on Christians by insurgent elements who are bent on destabilizing the fragile relationship between Christians and Muslim in Nigeria.

The CAN position was made known in a letter by the president of the association, Pastor Ayo Oritsejafor to the visiting US Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

According to the Vanguard Newspapers, the letter dated the 7th of July and signed by the Secretary General of CAN, Rev. Musa Asake on behalf of Oritsejafor reads:

“Much to our dismay, the information contained in our memorandum to the presidential panel on Post-Election Violence was not included in the 2011 State Department International Religious Freedom Report. Our memo presented widespread incidents of violence targeting Christians in 12 northern states in April last year during the reporting period of the 2011 report.

“Unfortunately the destruction of over 700 churches and the systematic massacres of hundreds of Christians in 48 hours – the largest single attack on Christendom in contemporary world history anywhere on the planet-were not included in your report. Even more surprising, the report failed to accurately describe the horrific Christmas Day multi-city church attacks.

“These coordinated attacks on three states, comprising Niger, Plateau and Yobe, claimed over 60 lives and, for a second consecutive year, stunned the world. The report merely mentions the Christmas Day church bombing of St. Theresa’s Catholic church in Madalla, then fails to communicate the scope and significance of the Christmas Day attacks.

“The pernicious persecution, denigration and dehumanisation of Christians in northern Nigeria especially has been a fact of life for over a quarter century. It is therefore disconcerting that the US report addresses it in a speculative tone that undermines the harsh reality of the masses of orphans and widows left behind.”

Observers believe that the militant Islamic sect, Boko Haram, directly and also through its affiliates, is pursuing a sinister violent agenda to induce outrage among Christians and precipitate reprisal attacks which it hopes will feed on itself and snowball into a crisis more difficult to contain.

http://www.ynaija.com/oritsejafor-wr...an-christians/

You might not know it, but the Christian Association of Nigeria is quite powerful - and Nigerian Christians listen to the their pastors a lot more than they listen to politicians.

[Chowing]

Originally Posted by KingJaja

You start answering the question when you realise that these problems are political (at least that is how they are interpreted in Nigeria). Nigeria has never really been stable, we fought a Civil War in sixties and I think it is high time we recognise the inevitable: either we split or we renegotiate the basis for continued unity.

.

No doubt, the political and ethnic difference are at the root of much of the division in Nigeria at present. However, we need not forget that the economic situation is the backdrop that is the breeding ground for the abscesses occurring in the political and ethnic divide.

I wonder, Kingjaja, what you think about this new investment initiative by the government. Does its safeguards against corruption and goals for trickling out into the general economy helpful ... helpful in the sense of medium to long term relief?

http://www.ventures-africa.com/2012/...n-wealth-fund/